Skip to main content
4:00 pm
want answers. >> is that a motion and yes. >> i'll second it. let's get a date >> two weeks, yes and the public hearing is closed. >> i would support the closings of the public hearing. >> hover if something new is presented to the commission then it will be reopen. commissioner >> i'm supporting that where the kitchen and other rooms could be moved to the back. it's there to give you light into the restaurant but i don't know what it looks like to the west and east but this is my
4:01 pm
concern. i'm generally okay with looithd in the country club >> would two weeks be sufficient. >> yes. you have to give me the date. >> that would be february 7th accounting. so is the continuance committee more to the february 7th accounting >> slightly. >> commissioner borden. >> my question is when you come back on that date talk about the mechanic equipment that i are going to use please have that. >> does the project commission have - i don't know here talking about 11 feet i suggested by keeping the light and is the
4:02 pm
mechanical equipment a problem. >> is the primary issue the noise? so one of the issues is to keep the plan as is and keep the mechanical except. and option two is to pull the restaurant back 11 feet and notes have a right leaving the possibility of no natural light maybe having a sky light. to it seems to me that the
4:03 pm
commissioners primary issue is the looikt in the back >> commissioner moore. >> no, i'm sorry i'm done. >> this reminds me of a case we had 6 years ago. there was a rear patio in the middle of residential area and i think our bilth concerns were the sound sketches and they were able to make enough changes to mull u muffle is sound. i think it's worked out fine >> commissioners on a motion to continue on february 7th. so moved the commissioners that
4:04 pm
moved and passed 6 to zero >> what was the other one? >> commissioners that will put i under item 16 for d and d at 740 bay street. requests for discretionary review. good afternoon commissioners i'm david from department staff. the case - this week is for decision correcty review to construct a two-story horizontal
4:05 pm
at the rear of the two-story garage located mid block on the north side of bay street in russian hill. decks are proposed. the subject lot measures 25 feet wide by 37.3 feet deep. two residential buildings on their own lot. the lot closet to the street contains a two-story unit. directly adjacent and west to the side. the character of the subject in
4:06 pm
the opposite block that faces the two-story buildings in various architect styles. some buildings especially mid block stepping up with the sloepdz architect. and other structures at street frontage. as was stated there were two discorrecty project but one was withdrawn last week. and robert thorp requested a - mr. thorpe's concerns include the following the projects negative effects on light and air to his building and privacy
4:07 pm
to his building the projects negative effects on the open block open space and character. and is projects effect on the value of his building. we reviewed the building and neither the project requests demonstrated any negative consequences. the r d t said that because it's uphill 750 bay street casts shoolz onto the building especially in the afternoon. the r d t would not create loss
4:08 pm
of privacy. the projects windows and decks faces the subject rear yard and not directly onto the adjacent proposes. the r t d noted that the patrolled size are within the tolerance for the neighbor of the staffs recollection says no to take the r d r and approve it >> you have 5 minutes. secretary it's one 5 minute period
4:09 pm
>> and in sports of the d r will have 5 minutes. >> my name is robert thorp i'm the owner of 750 bay street. it's considered a two-story project. i've lived here for 2 seven years. i purchased this properties from my landlord who has born on the block, owned the property since 1954. from the day i arrived i found the place i would live the rest of my life. i was told that my place is
4:10 pm
special. and most people on the block have never lived there long. therefore the develop or so and their hired guns have no concept of the issues. more as developers do they care as demonstrated since my filing in october. but it's not only my home it's a significant income business. i treat my tenants like they're my extended family. since pretty much this property in 2002 i have paid the city of $70,200,000 in property tax. to put a human face to this
4:11 pm
project i ask for your help in minor changes. let me state that i'm in favor of the 75 percent of the upgrades. most of the project will be positive for the neighborhood it will attract people that will pay property taxes. however, the staff minus protection us. i've submitted to the projects owners many times and i've let them know about the privacy and noise issues that would be significant depending upon who the new owners are. the develop or so have offered
4:12 pm
one take it or leave it so far as the roofline. i've been available and willing to discuss changes since my filing in early october and i've had no responses. the develop or so only want to appear to be cooperative at least on face value. and to den my d r i ask that the commission persevere some of the issues here. in order to maintaining some of the lighting i'm asking for a
4:13 pm
suicide and - on the second floor addition extending into the garden be moved back a few feet. this would only be asking for a little bit of space be eliminated. whether or not this property is 31 hundred square feet or less it won't matter to the people in this neighborhood. i'm asking for that the proposed slab design that would allow more light in the units number 1 and two.
4:14 pm
i'm asking that the privacy concerns be respected in unit 1 and 2. i'm asking that the roof-deck be denied >> thank you. >> and noise consideration. thank you for your consideration >> speakers in support of the d r a requester. >> my name is it pauli live in unit one. at 750 bay with my companion donna rose. she was working and couldn't be here. fortunately i'm retired and i'll
4:15 pm
speak. we've lived here 19 years. we had to move out of that place because the landlords son moved in and it took us 11 years to get back to the bay hills. we moved back in april of 2009 and it's been four years we're pretty sure may not residents >> now apartment union one is a small apartment and the living room is an essential part of it. it has by way windows where we live and it has sun light
4:16 pm
throughout the day. as i said in the mornings i'm in the living room reading any newspapers and donna goes to work and before that he's in the living room drinking coffee. and weekend and holidays we are both in the living room and i guess it's very important to us to have sun light. sun light in the living room is a big deal to us to have that blocked off and be in the shade is a major effect on our quality of life. so we're in favor of any changes to the project that would minimize that effect. i don't know who came up with
4:17 pm
the idea that there was be no effect on the sun light in the living room. there will be a substantial effect. and on our privacy the deck looks directly into our dining room. >> thank you next speaker. >> hi. i'm carol and i've been a resident since 1978. i'm taking care of of my mother and i'll move back in november to live there the rest of my life.
4:18 pm
whoever came up with the idea - in my living room is my only a light and add another third floor and extend it out to as far as he like to - i had a deck and i love the light and my privacy and i've gotten use to hearing the birds sing. so definitely this intrudes with my privacy. please realize this is my home. thank you >> thank you good afternoon i'll make this as brief as possible i'm laurie.
4:19 pm
i'm in unit 3. i'd like to finish off with some of the thoughts he continued with. talking about the denial of the roof-deck if we cooperative that on the discussion on this and then we would be most of the appreciative. on many which the large homes in pacific heights going on next to 740 base street we feel disadvantage in front of the this planning commission and not to have a greg on board to
4:20 pm
influence this commission we're asking chair wu to make some minimum issues that would effect our lives and help to preserves some of what is being taken away by those greedy develop or so. 20 years from now you as planning commissioners and develop or so will be gone i and my tenant will still be there. please make responsible decisions >> thank you. additional speakers in favor of the d r requester. project fined you have 5
4:21 pm
minutes. viewpoints wu and commissioner andrew greg on behalf of the project develop or so. mr. thorp is now the loan person not in favor of the project. as mentioned earlier staff found neither the project for more the d r a question met the circumstances. also mentioned the r d t further said that the privacy would be impacted at mr. thorpe's property. the project architect is here michael levitt is here and the rest of the team is here to
4:22 pm
answer questions. commissioners i formerly request that you does not paragraph the project as proposed. >> good afternoon mime michael is architect. if i could get the screen up please and thank you. the proposed project is an expansion of a single-family home between two centers. this image is the proposed projects. the two-story will be converted. the majority of the expansion
4:23 pm
will be fill converted to additional living space and it will pop out at the ground level space. is ground level will bees evaded to downward construction. we propose to actually lower the ceiling healthy and adolescence two feet to offer all of the building current ridge line. the third floor addition in this area is setback 17 feet off the
4:24 pm
face of the facade. it will remain with a single slope here. the subject building is 35 foot 9 niches as measured from his ridge line to above. the d r building is 8 foot below. with the cross street of bay street it is still 14 feet above the building. with only an open air entry
4:25 pm
within this space. the proposed project includes a walk out deck above the roof-deck and setback 3 feet from off the property line. there thorp as expressed lighting issues. >> thank you. speakers some support of the project >> we could get 3 minutes. >> i have speaker cards. >> vice president wu i live in russian hill. i work in real estate and i'll i seen the project plans and i
4:26 pm
support it. i'm also family with the discretionary plans - this will be a very positive thing for the owners. as a real estate broker in san francisco i typically come up with those types of projects. i believe people support projects like this because they will have to change their properties at some point. i ask that the commission do not take discretionary review.
4:27 pm
thank you for your time >> at the. everything commissioners i'm a homeowner in the neighborhood. i ask that i please approve the project as it's designed and do not take discretionary review. the cross street a lawyer kin >> excuse me. people in the audience you're out of order. >> any first time support here. you have a 2 minute rebuttal.
4:28 pm
like i said i'm 85 percent for this project i like it. it needs to be tweaked. like i said, we don't know who's going to be living next door. this is a revolving frat house where people are constantly coming and going. sometimes, we have to call the cops on some of these people for this is not okay when i live on fourteenth street. so therefore i'm asking the
4:29 pm
commission to approve some minor tweaks for us to have a quality of lifestyle. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> i could have the screen again, please. just to finish my comments on the design of the project. i was describing that it would have a deck of 5 feet as well as a small roof-deck which is held 3 feet off the property line and ending closed with a